American politics

Catholicism in America

Nuns gone wild

THE Vatican's latest target: American nuns. Yes, I thought that was weird too. Last week, the Vatican announced the conclusions of its doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which represents most of America's nuns. The verdict was that the LCWR is doctrinally confused, has emphasised ministerial concerns over the catechism, has failed to champion the Holy See's views on issues such as homosexuality, and that, perhaps under the influence of radical feminism, the LCWR occasionally flouts the bishops, "who are the Church's authentic teachers of faith and morals." My visceral reaction to this was something like, "Hey, old European men, this is America and our sisters can do whatever they want." Paleo-feminist, slightly jingoistic and doctrinally illiterate, perhaps. Still, I can say what I want, because I'm not a nun, right? Garry Wills, at the New York Review of Books, has a more temperate response:

The Vatican has issued a harsh statement claiming that American nuns do not follow their bishops' thinking. That statement is profoundly true. Thank God, they don't. Nuns have always had a different set of priorities from that of bishops. The bishops are interested in power. The nuns are interested in the powerless. Nuns have preserved Gospel values while bishops have been perverting them. The priests drive their own new cars, while nuns ride the bus (always in pairs). The priests specialize in arrogance, the nuns in humility.

As for the nuns themselves, some have declined to comment, because they have to be obedient. Others have had what seems like an understandable reaction. "People are stunned," Sister Pat McDermott told the Washington Post. "They're outraged, angry, frustrated, they don't know where this came from and how to hold it."

This has prompted some upset—see more reactions from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Star-Ledger, among others—and could lead to another round of debate over whether the Catholic church marginalises women. People have been debating that for ages, and as we've seen with the recent dispute over the church's stance on contraception, it's an open and emotive question. The complicating factor here is that the women being criticised have opted into the church's structure. I suppose you could argue that by virtue of having embraced their vocation, they have accepted some obligation to defer to the Vatican. So if they're being scolded, they have to charge it to the game. As Mr Wills suggests, Catholics themselves wrestle with the restrictions put on nuns. (See here for a touching essay by a father who struggled when two of his daughters took vows.) In any case, the question of the bishops' attitudes towards nuns is probably outside the purview of a blog on American politics.

However, in light of the stubborn tendency to see religious belief as hegemonic and homogeneous in the context of American politics—either you're religious, and therefore probably conservative, or you're not—this latest flap is worth noting because it corroborates a broader point. As I wrote last week, creationists are not a homogeneous group. My colleague concurred and reiterated the need to keep separate politics and religion, for the good of our pluralistic polity, as well as the good of faith. Elsewhere, people have taken issue with the public's implicit acceptance of religious labels as a proxy for political beliefs. Timothy Noah, for example, objects that mainstream news organisations "have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the Christian right's implicit suggestion that the only true Christian is a Christian conservative member of an evangelical or fundamentalist congregation." And as the Vatican's critique of the LCWR shows us, even within the category of devout Catholics, substantial variation may be observed.

Most people I know in the Church seem to admire the nuns because they serve. Alright, some of them are grouches but the ones I've run into want to witness through the Theology of the Deed -- love and kindness. Occasionally one runs into a sister on a power trip but that's human nature.

The nuns have this great blessing: they are virtually powerless on many matters and so can only serve. It is hard for the near-powerless to abuse power.

The bishops ARE powerful (within the Church) and most of them are a pretty decent lot. But, they have to be concerned with doctrinal consistency, running what would in other terms be a large-sized business, dealing with the press and keeing in the good graces of Rome.

The bishops looked contemptible, even criminal, in how they handled the sex abuse scandal. And, my opinion is that if they are allowed to go to cover ("All over Folks, nothing to see here")they will revert to type.

The Catholic Church has a catechism and Catholics are supposed to take it seriously -- and that includes nuns. It is easy indeed to say to the good sisters "You go, Girl!" since so many of us benefitted in our lives from these (usually) humble and well-meaning women.

At the same time, though, the Church cannot function if religious orders, male or female, are out their in the blue on matters of faith and doctrine.

Does the Church "margialize" women? Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear . . . well, you understand. In the parish where I teach, for instance, women are allowed on the altar exactly once -- in order to vacuum the surrounding carpet.

The Catholic Church is a Big Tent -- those who are not Catholic don't realize how incredibly diverse it is and over what a broad spectrum of opinion it operates. Right now,the bishops have lost touch not only with the nuns but with a lot of Middle America which has decided that it does not, after all, believe the gays are any more sinful than the rest of us -- which means, more than sinful enough!

There really are two sides to this argument. The Church does have a stake -- an eternal stake- in making sure the faith once delivered to the saints is transmitted intact. But, the bishops, especially those in Rome, might consider piping down, given the pig's ear they have made of things of late.

As for the snarky comment in TE about "old, European men," the same atitude could be taken toward old (most of them are near-ancient) American nuns. It is simply gratuitous.

The nuns you have pictured above are NOT members of the LCWR. I will bet a hat, that the nuns in your picture are orthodox, and would most likely oppose the LCWR and its unorthodox policies. Your paper shouldn't be so deceptive!

The nuns I know have suspected that this would happen for several years now, that's why they've changed how their property is legally registered so the Catholic hierarchy can't take it over or remove them from it.

Interestingly, the Catholic priests I know aren't too happy about this either. It's possible that the demographics of the priesthood might influence how the priest sees the issue. Most of the ones I know* tend to be in low-income areas that suffer gang violence, few job opportunities, drug abuse and the inhabitants tend to eat less than three meals a day. Those priests probably couldn't care less what the nuns think about abortion or the role of women in religion and are more interested in working with the nuns on soup kitchens, after school programs and volunteering to teach at schools.

I can think of more pressing manifestations of doctrinal confusion to correct. Where confession is axiomatic and frequent, the church exercised willful blindness and inaction in the face of preventable, pervasive child abuse.

How many years and lawsuits did it take before the church acknowledged, addressed and dealt with its bishops enabling, ongoing, systematic child-molestation? Decades and decades of relocating "misguided" priests, placing them in rural communities, orphanages, reform schools, developing countries, etc. Anyplace where potential victims would be muted or discredited by their respective cultural taboos, lack of social standing, lack of family, etc.

I highly doubt the church has eradicated itself of all sexual predators. How many of those "misguided" priests remain active and continue to head schools and orphanages?

You're probably right. My point has an inherent contradiction only because I think it should be a rare exception - to protect yourself or others from great bodily injury or murder, a priest's actions should be allowed to breach that confidentiality.

But let me ask you this - if a serial murderer confessed to a priest that he felt guilty but couldn't stop himself from killing, would it be wrong for that priest to take action based on that knowledge?

Would it be wrong for the priest to not permit himself (excluding the confessional room)to be alone with that person?

Would it be wrong for that priest to demand that his mother and sister not allow themselves to be alone with that person?

Would it be wrong for that priest to demand that his mother and sister not go near that person?

I didn't raise the point that "confession is axiomatic" to suggest that this confidentiality should be breached.

I raised it because priests regularly confess their sins to other priests. I would assume that most offending priests were tight lipped about their actions, but its probably safe to assume that some were confessing their sins. If they any of them had an ounce of decency, their confession should have involved not only the sin of defiling the child (the carnal aspect of the act), but also the sin of abusing their religious authority and position, poisoning that child's understanding of religion, thereby affecting and perverting its relationship with God.

Assuming that such confessions were made (along with evidence we now know existed of records, communications, transfers, grievances, and files confirming the church's knowledge), priests knew this was going on, but failed to report it; or they reported it to their bishop, cardinal, etc., who disregarded it. But had these "men of the cloth" not been so doctrinally confused as to what is right and wrong, they should have stuck their necks out to take a stand for those children by warning the public and parents - even if it meant a demotion, loss of status, etc. within the church.

Point being - far more priests, bishops, cardinals knew about what was happening, far longer than anyone on the outside. Hence, their "willful blindness."

Inaction is action. And they did nothing about it, despite knowing for a very long time.

Okay, so you do believe that confidentiality of Confession should be breached, in which case I still don't understand the point of your original reply to me saying otherwise. Given this, my earlier argument stands, which is that breaking the confidentiality of Confession is a not a good solution for ending any kind of crime because it only works once and after that you have destroyed the institution but end up right back where you started when it comes to your ability to fight crime.

It is also silly to project onto the institution your own notions of what Confession is about as if you were the one who started it. The Church that intentionally set up the institution in the way that it did (after a couple of iterations, of course) to create a safe zone for confessors because its highest priority was saving souls and so it wanted people to not have to worry about what they revealed in Confession being shared with anyone else so that they would be encouraged to come in and save themselves; creating exceptions to this confidentiality risks destroying the safe zone entirely, which is why (at least, theoretically) priests would rather die than reveal what was confessed to them. On the other hand, the priest does have discretion in proscribing a penance, so for particularly grave sins this can include turning one's self into the authorities.

I'm not a catholic, and i strongly disagree with a lot of their practices.
That being said, it is their club. I blame the nuns for being silly enough to join. Did they not know what they were signing up for? Read a history book.

You're probably right. My point has an inherent contradiction only because I think it should be a rare exception - to protect yourself or others from great bodily injury or death, a priest's actions should be allowed to breach that confidentiality.
But let me ask you this - if a serial murderer confessed to a priest that he felt guilty but couldn't stop himself from killing, would it be wrong for that priest to take action based on that knowledge?
Would it be wrong for the priest to not permit himself (excluding the confessional room)to be alone with that person?
Would it be wrong for that priest to demand that his mother and sister not allow themselves to be alone with that person?
Would it be wrong for that priest to demand that his mother and sister not go near that person?
Admittedly, it's a slippery slope, but hasn't it always been?

Perhaps children and people have been conditioned to fear and mistrust long black robes?

The church, led by men, mandated and sponsored the crusades and inquisition and grew drunk with its own power and influence, murdering countless innocents over the course of hundreds of years. I have no idea how it ever regained the trust and loyalty of the people.

But after its more recent, large-scale systematic sex-abuse conspiracy, it goes without saying that the classic uniform tends to inspire more fear than faith.

I disagree with your assertion, but the gauntlet is rightly thrown down-- what's the source of the pic, EG? Who (in general) are the nuns in the pic and what event are they at? I notice also that their habits are a bit different, which lends credence to the notion that the photo is from some inter-organizational gathering, but stamping the nuns depicted as definitely LCWR or definitely not LCWR is a bit premature.

On the other other hand, if indeed these are non-LCWR nuns, then is there a significant difference in appearance between them and nuns in the LCWR? And is that difference large enough to make g-i's complaint more meaningful than a quibble?

*shrug* They are fair questions and I honestly don't know the answer. I think that if a line were to be drawn, it would probably be along the lines of whether the confessor had been revealed to be a clear and impending danger to someone.

From the last paragraph of the blog post above “…need to keep separate politics and religion, for the good of our pluralistic polity, as well as the good of faith.”

Politics and religion are inseparable in the current environment and for our own good – we must keep Faith in politics. Or, more accurately, we must reassert Faith back into politics.

The quotation of St. Ignatius of Loyola, that I used in my earlier comments, might sound fanatical - filled with excessive and single-minded zeal. To some, maybe it does; to others, perhaps not – I think it is appropriate given the depth of study and contemplation of their (Magisterium of the Catholic Church) actions. However, regardless of one’s position, the theme in that quotation is really in everyday use and probably not viewed as fanatical at all and is widely accepted.

To illustrate this, and to prove my point, permit me to modify (modifications in parenthesis) the quotation:

"That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church (Republican or Democratic political party) herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black (uphold the political party line). For we must undoubtingly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ (strong political lobby, party leadership, influential voting block, etc.), and the Spirit (partisanship) of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit (partisanship) we are governed and directed to Salvation (power, prestige, wealth, selfishness, etc.), is the same..."

As I mentioned earlier in this comment - politics and religion are inseparable in the current environment - politics has become its own religion. However, Faith appears to be absent. We must reassert True Faith in something greater than that of our own human nature and its associated weaknesses into politics.

Personally, my Faith is in the Teachings of Jesus Christ as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. However, I respect any Faith that teaches its followers to go beyond the weakness of human nature.

@ LcvFyVngHc: "So I can't paraphrase an underlying purpose of Confession ("as though I originally started it"), but you can. That's your hubris talking:)"

The difference is that I am paraphrasing the purpose of Confession from the perspective of the Church, which is the only perspective that is relevant given that Confession is the Church's institution. If you believe that I have mischaracterized the position of the Church then please feel free to correct me.

@ LcvFyVngHc: ""Priests would rather die than disclose," but would rather sit back and allow his brother to serially rape children? What a romantic way to characterize inaction."

There is nothing romantic about facing messy and confusing moral choices.

It is interesting, though, that first you project hubris into my words, and then you project romance into them. I wonder what you will project on me next...

@ LcvFyVngHc: "Arguments like the ones you asserted above justifying inaction mirror the church's rationale that concealed and enabled that conduct."

So you are saying that my argument that it doesn't make sense to break an institution that is designed to provide a safe space for everyone, priest and laity alike, is exactly like every other rationale the Church thought to itself when it perpetuated the scandal?

Methinks you have some rather confused thinking if you really think that all such arguments are alike.

@ LcvFyVngHc: "[more ranting]"

Sure, I get it, you don't like the Church because people all the way up the hierarchy made evil and cowardly choices with the whole child molestation scandal; fair enough. However, despite your apparent inability to do so, it is possible to consider the institution of Confession apart from all of the aspects of the scandal rather than conflating everything in sight as you mindlessly rail against it.

@ (gibberish): "Where confession is axiomatic and frequent, the church exercised willful blindness and inaction in the face of preventable, pervasive child abuse."

I agree entirely that the Church should have done more about the horrifying child molestation scandal. Nonetheless, opening up the sacrament of Confession to law authorities is not a good solution to anything because it would only work a few times before the perpetrators simply stopped going to Confession, thus doing a lot of long-term damage to the institution (and as a result to peoples' souls) for a fleeting short-term gain.